America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Many if not most of us have heard of Ms. Warren's now debunked claims to Cherokee heritage and employment thereof during her academic career.

It now appears that the integrity of her scholarship leaves a lot to be desired as well, to put it mildly:

QUOTE

...... Claiming to be an "authority" on bankruptcy law, Warren has written papers and books wildly inflating the role medical bills play in personal bankruptcies.

A Northwestern University peer review of her 2005 paper on the subject, for example, ripped it apart, arguing "the methods were so poor they gave cover to those who want to dismiss the problems of the uninsured — they can say the only paper out there uses a suspect method."...ABC News suggested she was exercising a hidden agenda to promote a government-run health system. Sure enough, President Obama in 2009 seized on her findings to argue for socialized medicine: "The cost of health care now causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds."...In 2010, as Obama was floating Warren's name as someone to run his new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, "The Atlantic" magazine reviewed her academic work and found a disturbing "pattern" of using bogus metrics to inflate the case for left-wing causes. "Deeply, deeply flawed," it said of her research. "This isn't Harvard (Law) caliber material — not even Harvard undergraduate."...

This is not what I heard on Rachel Maddow the other night. I heard that Elizabeth Warren is 1/32 Cherokee, the same amount of Native American ancestry as the new chief of the Cherokee nation is. But really, who cares? Didn't Marco Rubio say that his dad was an exiled Cuban when he in fact wasn't?

As far as the "too fraudulent" question goes, I'm not sure any more what constitutes "too fraudulent" when it comes to people running for and maintaining high office in this country. I have listened to a bunch of politicians suggesting all kinds of things and not contradicting some of the more wild-eyed fans at their rallies.

I have seen a President talk about WMD's in Iraq and warn that the "smoking gun might come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

I know the purpose of your thread is to discredit Ms. Warren. As a member here, it is your right to post topics such as this one. But I would suggest to any reader that what Professor Warren has done speaks well of her intentions, i.e., to serve the people, the vast majority of whom are not in the upper 1% of wage earners. The development of the Consumer Protection Agency was much needed, considering that some corporations out there should be named "Caveat Emptor." Yes, I know the thought held by some that government regulation is bad regardless of its intent. But I'm also certain of the need for an FDA and OSHA, that peoples' safety has been greater since the inception of these agencies.

Obviously, if you think the unfettered free market is the be-all and end-all of our civilization, you probably won't like Elizabeth Warren or what she stands for. If you, however, like the idea that there is an entity to whom corporations must answer when they are negligent and commit malfeasance, that the government, while it is far from perfect, is here to protect the citizens from victimization, please consider electing Elizabeth Warren to the U.S. Senate.

1. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) will cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?2. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) should cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

No to both because 1) she actually does have Native American blood and 2) Massachusetts likes its socialized medicine. Nobody really cares if some academicians (love typing that out) have torn apart her papers and books. That's what they're paid to do, and if anyone thinks that health care expenses don't lead to bankruptcies, they're living in an ivory tower protected by either tenure or piles of cash, or both.

I'm pretty certain that the Massachusetts electorate will choose Liz over Scotty despite, or even because of, these attacks. The evil spell of the TEA types has worn off, or someone went down to New Orleans and got themselves a mojo hand <up ZZ Top>. The state is fundamentally liberal, and Brown slithered in during one of those interesting, yet quite transient, times in politics.

I know the purpose of your thread is to discredit Ms. Warren. As a member here, it is your right to post topics such as this one.

That statement hits the nail on the head PE. While akaCG has the “right” to start such a topic, I hope members are sophisticated enough to realize that this is just more of his blatant and shameless propaganda onslaught.

He’s already dropped this bit of propaganda on the “New Political Joke” and “News that isn’t a shock to you” threads, so why not start a thread to further use the board as a propaganda dump.

The claims about Warren misusing her sliver of Native heritage (less than my own, and I never use it either) in order to gain favoritism in employment are false.

They will hurt her in her election against Scott Brown, of course, because lies that are repeated loudly enough (and there's a lot of money for volume) get believed as truth.

As for the papers? Eh. It's easy to find economists and lawyers to trash one another's methodology. Especially when there's brazen partisanship involved.

But there will always be true believers and useful idiots who slurp up any gruel offered to trash one's political adversaries and lionize one's own.

But that's the state of politics in the modern era, where bad Senators and their allies love to make big elections about small things.

Not so fast. This is not a small thing especially to people like ME who are actually 1/4 Iroquois Indian. Not that I need to claim or use my minority status to hold or get a job (and I have NEVER used it, nor have my employers). This is FAR worse than a 50 year bullying claim. It's also good to note that ALL of her so-called papers (that Obama used as a basis in fact) are a sham when actually peer reviewed but that is another topic. This is another shining example of extreme bias by Democrats and the media to cover up and condone this behavior.

The claims about Warren misusing her sliver of Native heritage (less than my own, and I never use it either) in order to gain favoritism in employment are false. ...

That's quite the categorical assertion, there. Care to share the basis upon which it rests? Does it amount to more than, say, "Because Rachel Maddow said so."?

Oh, and the article you cite? I got a chuckle out of the headline ("Elizabeth Warren Did Not Claim Minority Status, Records Show"), considering that in the body of the article we find:

QUOTE

...A third document obtained by the AP Thursday indicated that the University of Pennsylvania, where Warren also worked, identified her as a minority professor....A report by a committee established to review the status of minority faculty at the University of Pennsylvania identifies Warren as a minority, however, without elaborating....

Perhaps it was the "Asian" box that she checked at Penn, and then again at Harvard. Oh, wait. That wouldn't have been as helpful. Never mind.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 12 2012, 07:30 PM)

...As for the papers? Eh. It's easy to find economists and lawyers to trash one another's methodology. Especially when there's brazen partisanship involved....

Heh. Riiiight.

Here's the Northwestern University "brazen partisan" who described Ms. Warren's study as one in which "the methods were so poor they gave cover to those who want to dismiss the problems of the uninsured — they can say the only paper out there uses a suspect method."

And, for good measure, here' a bit more (note: you're gonna have to don a Social Scientist/Statistician "let's take a look at the evidence", as opposed to a Lefty Partisan "let's fling the ad hominems" hat, I'm afraid) regarding Ms. Warren's academic research ... shall we say ... "stylings":

Got evidence thereof that amounts to more than, say, "I saw/heard it on Rachel Maddow's show"?

Let us take a moment to bask in the staggering chutzpah and odious hypocrisy of an individual who started a thread to wonder how a 16-year-old girl SHOULD have responded to her boyfriend's death now demanding "evidence" about anything.

BOSTON -- Records show that the leading Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts identified her race as "white" on an employment record at the University of Texas and declined to apply for admission to Rutgers Law School under a program for minority students.

The records on Elizabeth Warren were obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday. Warren's heritage has been under scrutiny after it surfaced that she had listed herself as having Native American heritage in law school directories.

Warren's campaign said the records reinforce her earlier statements that she never relied on a claim of minority status to get teaching jobs. She has criticized the campaign of Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown for suggesting that might be the case.

A third document obtained by the AP Thursday indicated that the University of Pennsylvania, where Warren also worked, identified her as a minority professor.

Brown has called on Warren to release all law school applications and personnel files from the universities where she taught.

Warren worked at the University of Texas from 1983 to 1987, when she took a job at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

A report by a committee established to review the status of minority faculty at the University of Pennsylvania identifies Warren as a minority, however, without elaborating.

The new documents paint a fuller picture of Warren's law school record.

On the Rutgers application, Warren wrote "No" in response to the question: "Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?"

Warren graduated from Rutgers in 1976.

On a personnel file from the University of Texas, Warren checked the box "White" when asked to select "the racial category or categories with which you most closely identify."

The categories included a box for "American Indian or Alaska Native," which Warren did not check.

If this is the worst akaCG and the right-wing blogs he frequents to find out what he should be hot and bothered about have to throw at Elizabeth Warren, they don't have much to slow her down from making Scott Brown an asterisk in Massachusetts politics.

Here's the thing Charlie Brown, Raptavio cited the very same article. I'm quoting it. See the difference?

Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to debunk the following statement: Records show that the leading Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts identified her race as white" on an employment record at the University of Texas and declined to apply for admission to Rutgers Law School under a program for minority students.

When you do that you'll have something substantial worthy of debating. As it stands, you don't.

Stick to fantasizing on how a 16-year-old girl thinks. You're no good at that either, but at least there you can make things up as you go along.

...Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to debunk the following statement: Records show that the leading Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts identified her race as white" on an employment record at the University of Texas and declined to apply for admission to Rutgers Law School under a program for minority students....

Heh. Nice try.

Your assignment, my dear chap, should you choose to accept it, is to explain Ms. Warren's choice to "suddenly" declare herself as a "minority" in such close temporal proximity to her becoming employed in the Ivy League (first at Penn, then at Harvard; see list below).

List of Ivy League universities/colleges (alphabetical; bolding mine; note: no part of the University of Texas or Rutgers University feature in it):

Explain what? What is a listing of Ivy League schools supposed to mean anyway?

Despite Fox News frothing at the mouth and you regurgitating it here, there's no evidence that Warren herself described herself as a minority at Harvard or Penn University. The burden falls upon you dear boy to prove she did, not me to prove she didn't.

I'm not even sure why anyone cares if Warren did list herself as a minority. Does it matter that Scott Brown was a Cosmo centerfold? Is it really more important than issues that really mean something to voters such as big banks blowing billions of dollars in high-risk investments?

QUOTE

Questions have arisen as to whether Warren used supposed Cherokee ancestry to take advantage of universities' minority-hiring programs.

Paleologos said JPMorgan’s losses give Warren an opening to push the scandal to the back burner.

"You've got an issue working against Elizabeth Warren followed by an issue that’s working for (her)," he said. "Both may cancel each other out."

A Boston Herald/UMass-Lowell poll this fall showed that Warren’s Wall Street stance resonates with voters.Respondents picked her over Brown 47 percent to 29 percent when asked who "would do a better job of proposing appropriate regulation of Wall Street."

UMass-Lowell professor Frank Talty said such numbers "show that voters in Massachusetts agree with her (stance)" on the issue.

When the voters go to the polls in November we will have to see if they consider a meaningless politically-motivated flap over how much Cherokee blood Elizabeth Warren has matters more than which candidate would do a better job of keeping arrogant bankers like Jaime Dimon in check.

Got evidence thereof that amounts to more than, say, "I saw/heard it on Rachel Maddow's show"?

Apparently there is a paper trail on this:

QUOTE

BOSTON -- A genealogist in Massachusetts has uncovered evidence that Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren does have Native American heritage as she claims.

Christopher Child of the New England Historic and Genealogy Society said Monday he found an 1894 document in which Warren's great-great-great grandmother is listed as Cherokee, which would make the Harvard Law School professor 1/32nd American Indian. Child says more research is needed.

That's good enough for me, but since plenty of evidence has been brought forth that Warren never misused her Native American heritage to get ahead, it's rather moot. The big fraud therefore goes to the Brown campaign and the right-wing echo chamber.

...... there's no evidence that Warren herself described herself as a minority at Harvard or Penn University. ......

Yeah, I'm sure that Penn and then Harvard just took it upon themselves, utterly unbeknownst to her, to list her as a minority. Uh huh.

Here's your evidence, coming to you from Warren herself (I'll bold it for you so you don't miss it):"I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,” said Warren."http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/...leid=1061128808

Are Ms. Warren's own words sufficient evidence of her having described herself as a minority, Mr. Journalist?

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 13 2012, 08:03 AM)

QUOTE(akaCG @ May 12 2012, 10:28 PM)

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 12 2012, 02:55 PM)

...... 1) she actually does have Native American blood ......

Got evidence thereof that amounts to more than, say, "I saw/heard it on Rachel Maddow's show"?

Here's your evidence, coming to you from Warren herself (I'll bold it for you so you don't miss it):"I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,” said Warren."http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/...leid=1061128808

Are Ms. Warren's own words sufficient evidence of her having described herself as a minority, Mr. Journalist?

It might have been--had you not chosen to omit the rest of her "own words," Mr. Innuendo.

I'll correct that particular oversight by you. (I'll bold it for you so you don't miss it):

QUOTE

The Harvard Law professor argued she didn’t use her minority status to get her teaching jobs, and slammed her Republican rival U.S. Sen.Scott Brown for suggesting otherwise.

"The only one as I understand it who’s raising any question about whether or not I was qualified for my job is Scott Brown and I think I am qualified and frankly I'm a little shocked to hear anybody raise a question about whether or not I'm qualified to hold a job teaching," she said, pushing to put Brown on defense. "What does he think it takes for a woman to be qualified?"

Warren is looking to shake off the story of her Native American background, which has hounded her since the Herald first reported that Harvard Law School has touted Warren as a minority hire. She also listed herself as a minority in a law school directory for nine years between 1986 and 1995.

"Being Native American has been part of my story I guess since the day I was born," said Warren, who never mentioned her Native American heritage on the campaign trail even as she detailed much of her personal history to voters in speeches, statements and a video. "These are my family stories, I have lived in a family that has talked about Native American and talked about tribes since I was a little girl."

The obvious purpose by Scott Brown, Fox News and Mr. Innuendo who leans heavily on right-wing blogs and Wikipedia entries is to drop hints, imply slyly and try to suggest Warren unfairly cast herself as a minority to gain advantage and positions she wasn't qualified for.

If you can't win on the issues, try to make the other candidate the issue. It's an old playbook, but without any proof Warren claimed to be Native American to boost her career it is also baseless.

QUOTE

The Warren campaign confirmed on Monday that Ms. Warren had listed herself as a minority member in a legal directory, but that she had done nothing wrong and that Mr. Brown was creating smoke where there was no fire.

The Warren campaign has offered no hard proof that she is of American Indian heritage. But neither has the Brown campaign proved that she has benefited personally from the claim.

On Monday night, officials involved in her hiring at Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Texas and the University of Houston Law Center all said that she was hired because she was an outstanding teacher, and that her lineage was either not discussed or not a factor.

"To suggest that she needed some special advantage to be hired here or anywhere is just silly," said Jay Westbrook, chairman of business law at the University of Texas.

Officials at the University of Texas said earlier on Monday that electronic records listed Ms. Warren as white. "Based on a preliminary search of electronic records, her ethnicity group is white," said Annela Lopez, the university's open records coordinator.

Looks like the Republican War on Women has opened a breathtakingly cynical new front.

Here's your evidence, coming to you from Warren herself (I'll bold it for you so you don't miss it):"I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,” said Warren."http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/...leid=1061128808

Are Ms. Warren's own words sufficient evidence of her having described herself as a minority, Mr. Journalist?

It might have been--had you not chosen to omit the rest of her "own words," Mr. Innuendo.

I'll correct that particular oversight by you. (I'll bold it for you so you don't miss it):

QUOTE

The Harvard Law professor argued she didn’t use her minority status to get her teaching jobs, and slammed her Republican rival U.S. Sen.Scott Brown for suggesting otherwise.

"The only one as I understand it who’s raising any question about whether or not I was qualified for my job is Scott Brown and I think I am qualified and frankly I'm a little shocked to hear anybody raise a question about whether or not I'm qualified to hold a job teaching," she said, pushing to put Brown on defense. "What does he think it takes for a woman to be qualified?"

Warren is looking to shake off the story of her Native American background, which has hounded her since the Herald first reported that Harvard Law School has touted Warren as a minority hire. She also listed herself as a minority in a law school directory for nine years between 1986 and 1995.

"Being Native American has been part of my story I guess since the day I was born," said Warren, who never mentioned her Native American heritage on the campaign trail even as she detailed much of her personal history to voters in speeches, statements and a video. "These are my family stories, I have lived in a family that has talked about Native American and talked about tribes since I was a little girl."

...

LOL.

Neither of the bolded bits has anything whatsoever to do with your earlier claim that there is no evidence that she described herself as a minority at Penn and then Harvard.

Man oh man. You can't even keep track of what argument you're trying to provide support for, it seems.

Neither of the bolded bits has anything whatsoever to do with your earlier claim that there is no evidence that she described herself as a minority at Penn and then Harvard.

Man oh man. You can't even keep track of what argument you're trying to provide support for, it seems.

Oh, that's okay. Because you haven't provided any evidence to support the contention Warren unjustly claimed minority status to boost her career. ...

Other than evidence that she did indeed check the "Native American" box as she was climbing into the law school big leagues and evidence that the quality of the scholarship that put her "on the map" was so shoddy that it was described as not even rising to the level of a Harvard College undergraduate, let alone a Harvard Law School prof, that is.

Officials at the colleges where she worked said the question of her heritage either didn’t come up, or had no effect on their hiring decision.

Perhaps it's time for you, akaCG, to present evidence that her hiring at any of the universities in question had anything to do with a claimed Native American heritage.

Also, an organization that refuses to get involved in a right-wing witch hunt is not, as described by you and the article you cited, running away or backing down. They're treating yellow journalism and idiotic politics as they should be treated.